DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108795032 A with a machine translation (concurrently submitted) (hereinafter “Hu”) being used as the English language equivalent translation.Regarding claim 1 Hu teaches a polyamide 5X resin composition obtained by polymerizing pentanediamine and a linear dicarboxylic acid as a monomer; wherein the dicarboxylic acid preferably includes sebacic acid, etc. (corresponding to the definition of long-carbon-chain bio-based polyamide resin composition from the instant application – see lines 7-11 from page 3 of the originally filed specification) (paragraph [0021]). Hu teaches the polyamide 5X resin composition comprises a blocked polyamide 5X oligomer (paragraphs [0010] – [0012]). Hu teaches the blocked polyamide 5X oligomer refers to a polyamide oligomer terminated product obtained by polymerizing 1,5-pentanediamine and a linear dicarboxylic acid as a monomer (paragraphs [0022], [0048], and [0049]), which corresponds to a terminal amino group content being present in the resin composition. Hu also teaches the blocked polyamide 5X oligomer has a lower melting point than the polyamide 5X resin (paragraph [0024]). Hu does not explicitly teach the polyamide 5X resin composition (long-carbon-chain bio-based polyamide resin composition) has a terminal amino group, from the polyamide oligomer terminated product, content of 42-60 mmol/kg. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the content of the terminal amino group (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate content of the terminal amino group through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired melting point of the polyamide 5X resin. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B). Hu teaches the polyamide 5X resin composition comprises 100 parts by mass (hereinafter “pbm”) of a bio-based polyamide 5X resin (paragraphs [0017] and [0038]), and an antioxidant (paragraph [0020]). Hu also teaches the polyamide 5X resin composition comprises: a lubricant ranging from 0.3-5 pbm, which overlaps the claimed range; and a compatibilizing agent (compatibilizer) ranging from 5-15 pbm, which falls within the claimed range (paragraphs [0038] and [0039]). Hu does not explicitly teach a content of the antioxidant ranges from 0.2-1.6 pbm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate content of the antioxidant using nothing more than routine experimentation to provide a desired degree of oxidative degradation prevention of the polyamide 5X resin composition. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). As disclosed by Hu, the content of: 100 pbm of the bio-based polyamide 5X resin; 0.3-5 pbm of the lubricant; and 5-15 pbm of the compatibilizing agent (compatibilizer) corresponds to: (100/116.6 to 100/105.5) 85.8 to 94.8 mass% of the bio-based polyamide 5X resin; (0.3/116.9 to 5/110.2) 0.26 to 4.5 mass% of the lubricant; and (5/110.2 to 15/116.9) 4.5 to 13 mass% of the compatibilizing agent (compatibilizer). When considered on a mass percentage basis, the parts by mass of: the bio-based polyamide 5X resin ranges from 85.8 to 94.8 pbm, which falls within the claimed range; the lubricant ranges from 0.26 to 4.5 pbm, which overlaps the claimed range; and the compatibilizing agent (compatibilizer) ranges from 4.5 to 13 pbm, which falls within the claimed range. In the alternative, the claimed lubricant, compatibilizer, and/or coupling agent are recited as being optional because they include an embodiment where each of the remaining elements include 0 pbm; therefore, these elements are not required to meet the claim.Regarding claim 2 In addition, Hu teaches the bio-based polyamide 5X resin is selected form one or more of PA510, PA511, PA512, PA513, PA514, PA515, PA516, PA517, and PA 518 (paragraphs [0042] and [0048] – [0050]). Hu also teaches the polyamide resin has a relative viscosity of 2 to 4 (paragraph [0015), which overlaps the claimed range. Hu teaches a melt temperature (melting point of the resin) of 280-300°C (paragraph [0030]), which falls within the claimed range. Hu teaches the polyamide 5X resin includes or comprises a bio-based polyamide 5X resin (bio-based component of 100% or 100% or less, which falls within/encompasses the claimed range) (paragraphs [0017], [0042] and [0063]).Regarding claims 9 In addition, Hu teaches the polyamide 5X resin composition (the long-carbon-chain polyamide resin composition according to claim 1) further includes continuous long glass fibers (fibers) (paragraphs [0028], [0039] and [0071]), which corresponds to a continuous fiber reinforced long-carbon-chain polyamide composite material. Hu teaches the long glass fibers has a content ranging from 30 to 100 pbm (paragraph [0038]), which corresponds to an embodiment where the mass percentage of the long glass fibers is (100/205.6) about 49 mass%, which falls within the claimed range.Regarding claims 10 and 11 As previously mentioned, Hu teaches an embodiment where the mass percentage of the long glass fibers is (100/205.6) about 49 mass%, which establishes a prima facie case of obvious because the proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP §2144.05(I). In addition, Hu teaches the polyamide 5X resin composition includes continuous long glass fibers (fiber being glass fiber and/or continuous long fibers) (paragraphs [0028], [0039] and [0071]). The remaining elements (continuous fiber reinforced long-carbon-chain polyamide composite being in the form of a unidirectional prepreg tape, continuous fiber reinforced long-carbon-chain polyamide composite having a thickness ranging from 0.15 to 0.5 mm, the continuous long glass fiber has a monofilament diameter of 8-15 µm, and/or the linear density of the continuous long glass fibers is 1000-3600 Tex) in the claims are recited as being optional features; therefore, these elements are not required to meet the claim.Regarding claim 13 Regarding the tensile strength and tensile modulus of the continuous fiber reinforced long-carbon-chain polyamide composite material, although the prior art does not explicitly disclose the continuous fiber reinforced long-carbon-chain polyamide composite material has a tensile strength of 850-1200 MPa and a tensile modulus of 30-40 GPa, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art since the Hu reference teaches an invention with an identical and/or substantially identical structure and/or chemical composition as the claimed invention. See MPEP §2112.
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2019/054109 A1 with United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0139699 (hereinafter “Miki”) being used as the English language equivalent translation, and United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0371241 (hereinafter “Kanai”).Regarding claims 3-6 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Hu teaches the content of the lubricant ranges from 0.3 to 5 pbm (paragraph [0039]), which overlaps the claimed range. Hu teaches the long glass fiber reinforced polyamide 5X composition further comprises an antioxidant (paragraph [0020]). Hu is silent with regards to specific antioxidants; therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional antioxidants. Miki and Kanai provide this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to use at least one of (a combination of) a hindered phenol-based antioxidant, such as N,N′-hexamethylene bis(3,5-di-t-butyl-4-hydroxy-hydrocinnamamide) (Antioxidant 1098) (hindered amine antioxidant) and phosphorus-based antioxidants, including Irgafos™ series antioxidants (Miki – paragraphs [0089] – [0090]), where a phosphorous-based antioxidant preferably includes tris(2,4-di-t-butylphenyl) phosphite (phosphite ester-based antioxidant), available as “IRGAFOS 168” (Antioxidant 168) (Kanai – paragraph [0093]) for polyamide resin compositions (Miki – abstract and Kanai – abstract). Miki also teaches an embodiment where the phosphorus-based antioxidant (Antioxidant 168 from the additional consideration of Kanai) has a content of 0.50 parts by weight, and the phenol-based antioxidant (Antioxidant 1098) has a content of 0.5 parts by weight (mass ratio being 1:1) (paragraph [0096]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the antioxidant of Hu from a combination of the Antioxidant 1098 (hindered amine antioxidant) and the Antioxidant 168 (phosphite ester-based antioxidant) from the combination of Miki and Kanai motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of antioxidants useful in polyamide resin compositions. The remaining elements from the claim not addressed above are recited as being optional; therefore, these elements are not required to meet the claim.Regarding claim 7 In addition, the materials listed for the claimed compatibilizer, from claim 3, are recited as being optional; therefore, the materials listed in claim 7 are not required to meet the claim.Regarding claim 8 In addition, the materials listed for the claimed coupling agent, from claim 3, are recited as being optional; therefore, the materials listed in claim 8 are not required to meet the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 9 March 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 4 and 13 under 35 USC §112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 4 and 13 under 35 USC §112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 9 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued Hu fails to disclose or suggest the claimed “continuous fiber reinforced composite material” because Hu teaches the continuous fibers as a raw material during a feed stage, and explicitly teaches a pelletizing step (Step C in Claim 11 of Hu) to chop the impregnated strands into pellets having a length of 11-13 mm. Therefore, the fibers in Hu’s final composite material are discontinuous (chopped). The examiner respectfully submits that this argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection of record. The examiner does not rely on the structure of the pelletized material to meet the claim. It is the position of the examiner that the intermediate product disclosed by Hu; that is, the product prior to the pelletizing step, meets the limitation in question. Furthermore, the examiner wants to highlight that the applicant’s argument is only commensurate in scope with claim 9, and the claims which depend therefrom because claim 1 is directed to a resin composition, not a composite as defined by the applicant.
The applicant argued Hu is silent regarding the terminal amino group content of its polyamide 5X resin composition. The examiner respectfully submits the updated rejection of record addresses this limitation. In summary, Hu recognizes the presence of a blocked polyamide 5X oligomer, which refers to a polyamide oligomer terminated product obtained by polymerizing 1,5-pentanediamine and a linear dicarboxylic acid as a monomer. The chemical structure of such a terminated oligomer corresponds to the presence of the claimed terminal amino group. With regards to the claimed content (42-60 mmol/kg), Hu also recognizes the blocked polyamide 5X oligomer has a lower melting point than the polyamide 5X resin, which recognizes that the content of the blocked polyamide 5X oligomer, along with its terminal amino group, is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable is characterized as involving nothing more than routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights